Why do neo-liberals hate guns?

[BBQLS1]

Well now that the 2A has been around over 200 years, it's time to change! They'll want it back after they've been deprived of it for 200 years!

 

[Vern Humphrey]

"Yeah, but someone else being gay, getting an abortion or getting high isn't going to get me or other innocent people killed!"

Actually, abortion by definition does kill innocent people.

And getting high and getting behind the wheel of a car kills more people than bullets.

 

[nutter]

Into which group does one fall, after they have been beaten, robbed at weapon point, and or rapped, where the victim still refuses to be armed?

Sounds like #3, eh?

I never armed myself despite being pro-2A for a long long time. The bar-stool explanation I gave people was "there is no situation that I would want to take to that level." You know all the self-defense stuff you hear about "avoid, evade, retreat", etc.? I took that to heart, and sincerely believed there wasn't a single situation where the use of lethal force on my part would improve the situation. You don't know me, so you're just going to have to take my word that I am very good at de-escalating situations.

I think there's some legitimacy to the line of thought that introducing lethal force to a situation can only make it worse. Try not to judge people who make that choice for themselves, lest they judge you for doing otherwise.

 

[nutter]

Hi Vern,

Actually, abortion by definition does kill innocent people.

I really don't want to turn this into a political debate, but suffice to say that point would be the contentious center of the whole debate, yeah?

And getting high and getting behind the wheel of a car kills more people than bullets.

Which is also a crime, for which people also go to jail. Just as they should when they use a gun to kill people.

Prohibition was repealed. People are free to choose to use alcohol or not. If they use it in a way which harms or endangers others, it is criminal. The same should be true of guns.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I think there's some legitimacy to the line of thought that introducing lethal force to a situation can only make it worse.

If the lethal force is introduced on the criminal's side, you betcha!

But "Shall-issue" laws are highly correlated with reduced violence. So the argument that violence will increase by allowing honest citizens to go armed is thoroughly refuted in actual experience.

People are free to choose to use alcohol or not. If they use it in a way which harms or endangers others, it is criminal. The same should be true of guns.

Agreed. Which is why I say anyone who can vote can carry.

 

[mbt2001]

Logically speaking, having no guns means no gun violence. They have not experienced, researched or learned anything that would open their eyes to the world before guns. Years ago, we had a world without guns and society was only a dream, because the big and strong and young ruled everyone.

The idea of majority rule isn't new. In fact, it is very old. The powerful was usually the majority (especially before guns). In the USA, we have Majority Rule with Minority rights, which means that even if you are not a majority, you have some rights and privileges. In a world were guns exist, it is possible for the minority to enforce making it necessary that the majority respect them.

 

[flat1ine]

Hey all!

I'll do my best to keep politics from coloring my reply too much, but be warned, I am a staunch Liberal Democrat. I think shooting is an awesome hobby, and while I don't yet own a firearm, I fully support the 2nd Amendment.

That said, I think most liberals DON'T hate guns - I think it's much more of an individual preference than it is a leftist rallying point, but maybe that's just me. Most of the folks I know that align with me politically have zero problems with gun ownership.

I think most folks with a level head - regardless of political affiliation - agree that gun ownership is a right. Some people feel the need to own a firearm for personal protection, fine by me. Some people hunt, some plink, some protect livestock/crops/whatever, some shoot competitively. I'm all for that. And I think the more educated we all are - on all sides of the political spectrum - we'll be better equipped to make sound judgements. That said, I do think there are folks in my camp that are zealots without knowing all the facts, but it doesn't mean they're entirely without merit.

This might be where we differ. (Again, I don't mean to ruffle any feathers, so please forgive me if I'm being uninformed or ignorant). I've got my flame suit on, just in case...

I understand the "need" for a shotgun for home protection, or a concealed handgun for personal defense, or a hunting rifle, or a collection of historic weapons, or even a .50 rifle if that's your thing - I'm behind that 100%.

I also believe (and I'll wager most liberals would agree) that fully automatic weapons have absolutely no place in civilian hands.

I can't believe that anyone honestly "needs" an MP5 or an Uzi or a Thompson. I can understand why you'd want one - firing a full auto MP5 was awesome, but personally I can't back it.

Again, I don't mean to offend, just offering up my POV.

- Erik

 

[nutter]

But "Shall-issue" laws are highly correlated with reduced violence. So the argument that violence will increase by allowing honest citizens to go armed is thoroughly refuted in actual experience.

Indeed, your choice to CCW makes the person who chooses not to safer.

No one's saying you *have* to carry a gun, just that people should be able to if they so choose.

 

[nutter]

Hi flat1line,

The argument would go thusly:

It has nothing to do with "need", but rather freedom.

Use the gun to shoot someone, that is criminal.

Heck, in this day and age, even brandishing it could be restricted. Walk down the street open carrying a machine gun and there could be an argument that a "reasonable man" would be terrified.

But simply owning it doesn't harm anyone. If it harms no one, it should not be illegal.

 

[conw]

flat1ine wrote:

I also believe (and I'll wager most liberals would agree) that fully automatic weapons have absolutely no place in civilian hands.

I can't believe that anyone honestly "needs" an MP5 or an Uzi or a Thompson. I can understand why you'd want one - firing a full auto MP5 was awesome, but personally I can't back it.

So you don't think the gov't "needs" them? Or you do think they do?

I "need" one for the same reason the government "needs" one...it's a highly effective small arm. And unlike military, I would use it only to demonstrably defend innocent life (primarily my own and relatives). Police and normal people like myself can only use a gun to protect an innocent life (for cops there is the "fleeing felon" thing, but that's a very rare exception). Military can use them to kill the enemy in war. If there is a slightly more effective weapon for defending innocent life, why do I not need/deserve it?


(BTW, I realize 100% full-auto isn't that useful defensively, but you can't tell me 3-shot burst isn't!)


This may not have sunk in yet, but no portable weapon is so effective in a defensive scenario that you can count on stopping an offender. That's why I, and everyone here almost, wants the most effective weapon and ammo possible. That's why the "Black Talon" hollow-point fiasco was such a travesty. Even a small increase in potency (like from semi-auto to 3-round burst) means a better chance of surviving an armed encounter.

I see your point about how "most liberals" "support" gun ownership, but the problem is that the "reasonable restrictions" are a slippery slope and are not reasonable, and that rabid anti-gunners of the #4 variety want to strip them away splinter by splinter - so we don't want to give an inch.

 

[jackdanson]

I also believe (and I'll wager most liberals would agree) that fully automatic weapons have absolutely no place in civilian hands.

I'm not a civilian per se... I'm part of the militia as originally intended by the founding fathers.

Furthermore are FA weapons really that much more dangerous? Keep in mind the 2 greatest mass murders in US history were accomplished using nothing more than box cutters and fertilizer. (WTC, oklahoma)

The last FA shooting rampage I know of is the North Hollywood shootout in which exactly 2 people died... the 2 people who were shooting the full auto weapons.

 

[conw]

+1 to nutter's more libertarian point, too, although I can still point out, very easily, why I need one.

 

[Zundfolge]

Explain that shooting someone is a crime, and if someone does that, they should be arrested and rot in jail.

The counter argument usually comes down to a fear that guns go off on their own all the time and that most gun owners will handle them irresponsibly (not simply criminally).

Into which group does one fall, after they have been beaten, robbed at weapon point, and or rapped, where the victim still refuses to be armed?

I'd say primarily The Hopolophobe (although they may just be staunchly partisan leftists or even so completely duped as to believe that they're less safe being armed than unarmed).

Most antis occupy more than one of those categories to varying degrees.



flat1ine the biggest disagreement I have with your thinking is that you seem to be coming from the point of view that its just fine for government to ban a thing if the people cannot express a specific "need" for it.

In a free society it doesn't work that way, in a free society ALL THINGS ARE LEGAL unless the government can come up with a strongly compelling reason why limiting freedom in a certain area is absolutely necessary for the protection of life, liberty and property.

Laws against machine guns are as foolish as laws against any gun, they will ONLY keep guns out of the hands of law abiding people that pose no threat to society at large, they will NEVER stop a criminal determined to posses any thing (which they'll likely use for evil).

 

[bdickens]

Nutter said: I never armed myself despite being pro-2A for a long long time. The bar-stool explanation I gave people was "there is no situation that I would want to take to that level." You know all the self-defense stuff you hear about "avoid, evade, retreat", etc.? I took that to heart, and sincerely believed there wasn't a single situation where the use of lethal force on my part would improve the situation. You don't know me, so you're just going to have to take my word that I am very good at de-escalating situations.

I think there's some legitimacy to the line of thought that introducing lethal force to a situation can only make it worse. Try not to judge people who make that choice for themselves, lest they judge you for doing otherwise.

I couldn't disagree with you more.

"No situation?" None at all? Not even if your own life is threatened? Do you not realize that there are monsters among us who will kill you for sport? You can't reason with those people. There are also those situations in which the options of "avoid, evade, retreat" are simply not available. The sudden and violent home invasion, the carjacking, etc. "Avoid, evade, retreat" are of course the preferred options, but you need to have a backup plan.

"...introducing lethal force to a situation can only make it worse." Worse for who? The guy who is trying to kill you? Why should you care? He made his own choice, not you.

If you are unwilling to preserve your own life, that's your perrogative and that's fine if it is just yourself we are talking about. But what about your family and friends? You are not isolated in the world. There are others who love you, care about you and rely on you. People who would be severely hurt if you were taken from them.


Don't take this the wrong way because it isn't meant to be a personal attack, but your decision to be unwilling to use any means necessary to stay alive is extremely selfish and it smacks of a nihillism that I am unwilling to embrace.

I owe it not only to myself, but to those who care about and rely on me - friends, family and even co-workers - to stick around so I can meet my obligations, both expressed and implied, to them.

 

[oneounceload]

Flatline - with your argument about need....then we should also get rid of every vehicle that can above the posted speed limits, since there should be no NEED to go faster than what some gov't desk jockey has determined, right??

Funny how New Zealand, with their fairly strict gun laws, allows OTC sales of suppressors, while here they are taxed and restricted.

It's about freedom, and freedom to choose what is best for you as an individual. If you don't like black rifles, don't buy one, but why should anyone's personal preferences dictate what someone else should be able to do or own??

 

[nutter]

The counter argument usually comes down to a fear that guns go off on their own all the time and that most gun owners will handle them irresponsibly (not simply criminally).

Indeed. And that's why The High Road is such an important RKBA tool.

Teach those that don't know proper handling and safety (reduce fear). Let them discover the the "gun crowd" isn't just a bunch of nutters (reduce fear). Teach them about weapons and what they are for (encourage play). Take them to the range and let them have a blast shooting (encourage play).

Shooting safely, I might add.

I for one an a great beneficiary of The High Road.

 

[flat1ine]

To respond briefly:

conwict - I meant no disparagement against your character - I'm sure you, like the majority members of this board, are exceptionally careful, thoughtful, and level-headed with your weapons. As for three-round burst - I'm with you on that one, hence i only state i was opposed to full autos. As for the military, i think we should give our men and women whatever the hell they need to get the job done. I'm opposed to full autos in the hands of the average civilian - LE and military, naturally, are a separate category.

I also agree that "reasonable restrictions" are a slippery slope, and I'm not sure exactly where the line should be, I just believe there should be one.

jackdanson - I do believe that fully automatic weapons are more dangerous, absolutely and without question. A weapon that has the ability to empty its' magazine in one trigger pull is inherently more dangerous that a bolt-action or semi weapon. I'm not saying they're not both capable of causing havoc, one's just capable of causing more, and more quickly.

oneounceload - "... why should anyone's personal preferences dictate what someone else should be able to do or own?" That's exactly the argument I use with my conservative family members about same-sex marriage, abortion, religion, etc. I believe that everyone should have the right to life their life as they see fit - when it comes to full auto weapons - I'm just stating opinion - I don't make the laws

Thanks for not ripping me to shreds

 

[KBintheSLC]

I can't believe that anyone honestly "needs" an MP5 or an Uzi or a Thompson.

Actually, you would only "need" those if you are to stand a chance against a government tyranny that is armed with those same weapons.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting or sport shooting. Its about giving power to the people. And restricting us to single-shot pea shooters will not retain that power.

Also, when you start with gun restrictions, its hard to stop... until all of our liberties are gone. Don't believe me? Well, there are over 22,000 of these restrictions from coast to coast, and its still not enough to satisfy them.

 

[SuperNaut]

^I'm just proud you made the distinction between classic liberals and neo-liberals in your OP. Seriously, I wish more people understood the difference...

 

[ScotZ]

I don't think that "liberals hate guns" is a useful idea. I know plenty of folks that would be considered to be "conservative" in political, fiscal and social terms, but who believe that only the government should have guns. I also know plenty of folks that would be considered "liberal" by many here who come and shoot with me.

Much like Zundfolge I think what we have is people who don't fit any clear simple classification like "liberal" or "conservative" or "republican" or "Democrat". A lot of these examples will be paired as those who rule and those who want to be ruled.

Some believe that no one should have guns because the means to harm others just shouldn't be around.

Others believe that only the government should have guns because only that level of authority needs them to keep everyone in line (very different from the first group).

Then there are the folks that have been sold the bill of goods that the antis put out. I suspect that most of the "antis" fall into that group.

Coupled with the ones that want the government to keep everyone in line is the Oligarchy that wants to run things and therefore doesn't want the public to have the means of opposing them.

Finally is probably the smallest group, those in power that think that they're actually keeping people safe from harm by trying to remove guns from society.

You'll find "liberals/conservatives" or "republicans/Democrats" in any of these groups.

If you want to categorize people I think it's best to class them in a spectrum from authoritarians to anti-authoritarians. Usually folks on the authoritarian end want the government to have all the guns to maintain order while the folks on the other end aren't interested in telling people what they should do and therefore don't care if the "public" has guns.

You just wrote something that I have been trying to put into words for years. Thanks(we need a thumbs up smilie)

 

[Owen Sparks]

It's not your gun so much as what it represents. To them it is a symbol of individualism and defiance. Since you asked, socialists and fascist of all stripes are Collectivists. If you are interested in learning how these people think take a look here: http://www.youtube.com/user/ST0PandL00K There are several short animations on Collectivism as well as an excellent short animation on gun control.

 

[nutter]

^I'm just proud you made the distinction between classic liberals and neo-liberals in your OP. Seriously, I wish more people understood the difference...

I'm more accustomed to talking with liberals than about them. Care to educate me on the terminology?

 

[SsevenN]

As for the military, i think we should give our men and women whatever the hell they need to get the job done. I'm opposed to full autos in the hands of the average civilian - LE and military, naturally, are a separate category.

No, they are not, or at least they shouldn't be.

As posted previously, 2A allows 'the people' to bear arms, in case of the need for armed disobedience against it's own out of control government.

Restricting and taxing NFA firearms does nothing but widen the gap between the peoples power, and the governments. The existence of firearms themselves, in any format (auto/semi/bolt) has never been linked to any change in the crime/violence rate.

The only people who loose when rules/regulations are inacted are those who follow the rules.

 

[flat1ine]

I know i'm going to get taken to town for this one ...

KBintheSLC, with all due respect, the Second amendment was written almost 222 years ago, at a time when we constantly depended on "a well regulated Militia," because as a nation, we hardly had a federalized military to speak of.

IMO, the clause is utterly outdated, and the wording no longer applies to the bulk of our society.

Moreover, I'm not even remotely concerned about having to combat a tyrannical government - foreign or domestic - on American soil, but i suppose only time will tell.

SsevenN - Hile, gunslinger. Law enforcement and military personnel have a level of training and disclipline far surpassing that of ordinary civilians - by default, they're already in a different category. You can't put Roland and Cort on the same level at Jake's father or Aaron Deepneau, can you?

Again, i'm only offering my opinions - I mean no disrespect to either of yours.

 

[oneounceload]

the Second amendment was written almost 222 years ago

so were all the others - if the 2nd is outdated, then the others are as well.

We've already lost some of the 1st's guarantees to the PC crowd, other freedoms in the name of "security and safety - we don't need to lose any more.